Butte-Silver Bow approves six-month extension for Sabey/Horizons purchase-and-sale after heated public debate

Butte-Silver Bow commissioners voted 9-3 on Feb. 4 to grant a six-month extension of the purchase-and-sale agreement with Horizons Montana LLC (doing business with Sabey Data Centers) for approximately 600 acres in the Montana Connections Business Park.

The motion to amend the requested one-year extension to six months and place the communication on file was made by Commissioner Morgan and passed with nine in favor and three opposed. The extension preserves the county’s ability to require a subsequent two-thirds vote on resolutions required to complete any sale.

The meeting’s public-comment period was evenly split among speakers who urged the council either to deny the extension and renegotiate stronger protections or to allow more time for the ad hoc committee to finish technical reviews. Kelly Sullivan, representing the Butte Local Development Corporation, read a BLDC letter urging approval, saying the project “represents exactly the type of strategic economic development we seek to attract.” In contrast, Elton W. Ringsock told commissioners he opposed another extension and warned of environmental harms, including “low frequency noise pollution” and threats to local ecosystems.

County staff and outside speakers presented competing technical claims. Andy Durkin, a TED board member, said Sabey’s capital investment estimates for building and infrastructure were between $1.5 billion and $2 billion and that, even at conservative assumptions, the county could see roughly $13 million a year in property tax revenue, with about $11 million of that becoming tax increment for the TED district. Several residents and trades unions said construction work would provide local jobs and apprenticeships; union representatives spoke in favor of the extension to capture local construction employment.

Commissioners pressed for enforceable, written commitments from Sabey on timelines, job quality, water usage, noise mitigation and stronger clawback provisions if parcels are not developed. Commissioner O’Leary said he supports the project in principle but urged denying the requested one-year extension and instead requiring a new purchase-and-sale or stronger sideboards. County Director Burns and County Attorney Ann Ruth described a recently discovered 1996 right-of-first-refusal recorded on part of the property tied to ASME/REC; that title issue triggered a 60-day notice and complicated the timeline. Director Burns told the council the exception was identified on Jan. 6 and notice was sent; County Attorney Ann Ruth warned that litigation was a possible outcome under multiple scenarios but said the contract as amended could be legally upheld.

Sabey was made available by phone during the meeting. A Sabey representative said the company did not learn of the right-of-first-refusal exception until it appeared on a title report and that the firm brought it to the county’s attention. Commissioners requested that Sabey appear in-person for a community presentation and provide written commitments on water use, construction and operating timelines, noise and vibration mitigation, and job numbers. Director Burns indicated Sabey had discussed timelines with staff and that six months would likely be acceptable to the company while noting energy negotiation timelines might require further extensions.

The council’s vote to extend does not finalize any sale. Any eventual closing still requires statutory steps, and commissioners emphasized they retain the authority to approve or reject a final sale resolution later in the process. The ad hoc committee will continue its review; staff will pursue clarification of the ASME/REC right-of-first-refusal during the extension period.

Next steps: Sabey was asked to provide a written presentation and to meet with commissioners and the ad hoc committee; Director Burns and the county attorney said staff will pursue title cleanup efforts while the extension is in effect.